Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • S13 (2)The creditor may not exercise the right under paragraph 4 to recover from the keeper any unpaid parking charges specified in the notice to keeper if, within the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which that notice was given, the creditor is given— (a)a statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm to the effect that at the material time the vehicle was hired to a named person under a hire agreement; (b)a copy of the hire agreement; and (c)a copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement. As  Arval has complied with the above they cannot be pursued by EC----- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- S14 [1]   the creditor may recover those charges (so far as they remain unpaid) from the hirer. (2)The conditions are that— (a)the creditor has within the relevant period given the hirer a notice in accordance with sub-paragraph (5) (a “notice to hirer”), together with a copy of the documents mentioned in paragraph 13(2) and the notice to keeper; (b)a period of 21 days beginning with the day on which the notice to hirer was given has elapsed;  As ECP did not send copies of the documents to your company and they have given 28 days instead of 21 days they have failed to comply with  the Act so you and your Company are absolved from paying. That is not to say that they won't continue asking to be paid as they do not have the faintest idea how PoFA works. 
    • Euro have got a lot wrong and have failed to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4.  According to Section 13 after ECP have written to Arval they should then send a NTH to the Hirer  which they have done.This eliminates Arval from any further pursuit by ECP. When they wrote to your company they should have sent copies of everything that they asked Arval for. This is to prove that your company agree what happened on the day of the breach. If ECP then comply with the Act they are allowed to pursue the hirer. If they fail, to comply they cannot make the hirer pay. They can pursue until they are blue in the face but the Hirer is not lawfully required to pay them and if it went to Court ECP would lose. Your company could say who was driving but the only person that can be pursued is the Hirer, there does not appear to be an extension for a driver to be pursued. Even if there was, because ECP have failed miserably to comply with the Act  they still have no chance of winning in Court. Here are the relevant Hire sections from the Act below.
    • Thank-you FTMDave for your feedback. May I take this opportunity to say that after reading numerous threads to which you are a contributor, I have great admiration for you. You really do go above and beyond in your efforts to help other people. The time you put in to help, in particular with witness statements is incredible. I am also impressed by the way in which you will defer to others with more experience should there be a particular point that you are not 100% clear on and return with answers or advice that you have sought. I wish I had the ability to help others as you do. There is another forum expert that I must also thank for his time and patience answering my questions and allowing me to come to a “penny drops” moment on one particular issue. I believe he has helped me immensely to understand and to strengthen my own case. I shall not mention who it is here at the moment just in case he would rather I didn't but I greatly appreciate the time he took working through that issue with me. I spent 20+ years of working in an industry that rules and regulations had to be strictly adhered to, indeed, exams had to be taken in order that one had to become qualified in those rules and regulations in order to carry out the duties of the post. In a way, such things as PoFA 2012 are rules and regulations that are not completely alien to me. It has been very enjoyable for me to learn these regulations and the law surrounding them. I wish I had found this forum years ago. I admit that perhaps I had been too keen to express my opinions given that I am still in the learning process. After a suitable period in this industry I became Qualified to teach the rules and regulations and I always said to those I taught that there is no such thing as a stupid question. If opinions, theories and observations are put forward, discussion can take place and as long as the result is that the student is able to clearly see where they went wrong and got to that moment where the penny drops then that is a valuable learning experience. No matter how experienced one is, there is always something to learn and if I did not know the answer to a question, I would say, I don't know the answer to that question but I will go and find out what the answer is. In any posts I have made, I have stated, “unless I am wrong” or “as far as I can see” awaiting a response telling me what I got wrong, if it was wrong. If I am wrong I am only too happy to admit it and take it as a valuable learning experience. I take the point that perhaps I should not post on other peoples threads and I shall refrain from doing so going forward. 🤐 As alluded to, circumstances can change, FTMDave made the following point that it had been boasted that no Caggers, over two years, who had sent a PPC the wrong registration snotty letter, had even been taken to court, let alone lost a court hearing .... but now they have. I too used the word "seemed" because it is true, we haven't had all the details. After perusing this forum I believe certain advice changed here after the Beavis case, I could be wrong but that is what I seem to remember reading. Could it be that after winning the above case in question, a claimant could refer back to this case and claim that a defendant had not made use of the appeal process, therefore allowing the claimant to win? Again, in this instance only, I do not know what is to be gained by not making an appeal or concealing the identity of the driver, especially if it is later admitted that the defendant was the driver and was the one to input the incorrect VRN in error. So far no one has educated me as to the reason why. But, of course, when making an appeal, it should be worded carefully so that an error in the appeal process cannot be referred back to. I thought long and hard about whether or not to post here but I wanted to bring up this point for discussion. Yes, I admit I have limited knowledge, but does that mean I should have kept silent? After I posted that I moved away from this forum slightly to find other avenues to increase my knowledge. I bought a law book and am now following certain lawyers on Youtube in the hope of arming myself with enough ammunition to use in my own case. In one video titled “7 Reasons You Will LOSE Your Court Case (and how to avoid them)” by Black Belt Barrister I believe he makes my point by saying the following, and I quote: “If you ignore the complaint in the first instance and it does eventually end up in court then it's going to look bad that you didn't co-operate in the first place. The court is not going to look kindly on you simply ignoring the company and not, let's say, availing yourself of any kind of appeal opportunities, particularly if we are talking about parking charge notices and things like that.” This point makes me think that, it is not such a bizarre judgement in the end. Only in the case of having proof of payment and inputting an incorrect VRN .... could it be worthwhile making a carefully worded appeal in the first instance? .... If the appeal fails, depending on the reason, surely this could only help if it went to court? As always, any feedback gratefully received.
    • To which official body does one make a formal complaint about a LPA fixed charge receiver? Does one make a complaint first to the company employing the appointed individuals?    Or can one complain immediately to an official body, such as nara?    I've tried researching but there doesn't seem a very clear route on how to legally hold them to account for wrongful behaviour.  It seems frustratingly complicated because they are considered to be officers of the court and held in high esteem - and the borrower is deemed liable for their actions.  Yet what does the borrower do when disclosure shows clear evidence of wrong-doing? Does anyone have any pointers please?
    • Steam is still needed in many industries, but much of it is still made with fossil fuels.View the full article
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2341 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

I know it's not clever but I was chosen to have a random check and they found items not scanned so needed a full scan.

 

Went to a till and put my shopping up with obviously extras but left some clothes in a bag.

 

They took a copy if the receipt.

 

I was racked with guilt so 30 mins later went back and paid for clothes.

 

What will happen Now?

 

Will they check cctv as they have my club card and account details?

 

I'm totally fretting that the police will come knocking on my door!

 

I paid for all the items in my bag just worried about the clothes Now!

 

TIA

Link to post
Share on other sites

We probably need to hear from someone with expertise in 'retail loss prevention" (ideally with knowledge of their procedures). (I don't mean RLP, the firm, you can safely ignore them!).

 

The key point that stands out for me is that "they took a copy of the receipt", as I've never had that happen to me whenever I've had a 'random rescan' (from a number of retailers,), as this may suggest this was flagged for 'loss prevention', rather than the routine rescan only.

 

One can argue that the initial discrepancy between what was scanned and what was in the bag was due to an error,

not due to fraud by false representation / theft, but if it was then shown that you left clothes in a bag,

you'd have to explain that, and why both weren't deliberate.

 

The fact that you paid for the clothes later is good for mitigation,

but doesn't stop you having committed the offence(s),

if they were deliberate or a court finds they were dishonest,

as the offence would have been committed at the time,

and doesn't get 'cancelled out' by you later paying (only mitigated!).

 

Have you done this before?.

 

The reason I'm asking is that if you were already on the 'radar' for loss prevention they might have been watching you on CCTV

- if so, they can refer the evidence to the police, and the police might then come looking for you.

 

If you haven't done this before then they again might be able to convince the police this was deliberate, but it it less clear.

They might just "keep an eye on you" in future.

Alternatively, this might all just be by chance, but the "they took a copy of the receipt" is a worrying factor.

 

Either way, don't do it again!. If you 'get lucky' this time, you may not be so lucky if you chance your arm again.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi and welcome to CAG

 

I take it that this is Tesco.

 

Your original attempt was to steal but common sense overtook your urge so as I see it, all the goods have been paid for.

 

I doubt anything will come of this and certainly no police involvement as they are far too busy to bother with small items.

 

If you did raise suspicions then they may just view the CCTV and act accordingly but I doubt anyone will have the time to view them. Yes, they could check the times of visit by your clubcard but at the end of the day, you did (eventually) pay for it all.

As I said, no police but if Tesco did do checks, you may find out the next time you visit. Doubtful but you never know.

 

If you get any letters through the post, keep them safe and come here for help.

 

The only thing you must do is think why you did what you did. Any underlying issues?

 

Put this into perspective. What you did was wrong BUT you did put it right. No harm, no foul just don't do it again.

If you are asked to deal with any matter via private message, PLEASE report it.

Everything I say is opinion only. If you are unsure on any comment made, you should see a qualified solicitor

Please help CAG. Order this ebook. Now available on Amazon. Please click HERE

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Put this into perspective. What you did was wrong BUT you did put it right. No harm, no foul just don't do it again.

 

 

Yes it I wrong but only put right AFTER checks.

If no checks took place would it of been "put right"

 

The offence was still committed.

 

Are their underlying issues or problems that need to be addressed?

If you think its a possibility then I would have a chat with your GP.

 

As previously stated tho, RLP letters can be ignored.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The offence(s) was/were committed if there was dishonest intent.

The fact that the initial attempted theft / fraud by false representation was prevented by the rescan doesn’t undo the previous crime.

The fact the clothes were paid for 30 minutes later doesn’t mean the theft of those clothes didn’t occur : only paying for them at the time, not 30 minutes later when conscience / realisation they might have been monitored kicks in.

 

Remorse / paying afterwards is mitigation, not a defence or shield from prosecution.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I really wouldn't worry, it's paid for now.

 

Besides they don't have the time to trawl through all of the footage to pick you out and follow you through the whole visit, they would need to have watched you select the item, conceal it, have continuous observation, make no attempt to pay and then leave the store.

 

I really wouldn't lose any sleep over it, but it might be something worth talking to your doctor about.

Who ever heard of someone getting a job at the Jobcentre? The unemployed are sent there as penance for their sins, not to help them find work!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know it was wrong.

I always self scan

never had to have a total re scan before just the 8 or so items and all has been fine.

This is the very first time.

 

I think she wanted to check the amount I paid to the amount scanned through.

 

I had a printer which scanned as I went out

security guard checked me and my receipt and sent me on my way.

 

I'm totally mortified and I will NEVER do it again trust me.

I've not slept or eaten since.

 

Not sure whether to go back in tomorrow to get my daughter's cooking ingredients or just stay away!

 

I even contemplated going in today to ask if anything was going to be done!

 

Not sure why had a year of cancer scare,

diagnosed with fibromyalgia,

father died,

cat died

and aunty died!

 

No excuses I shouldn't have done it!

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are “in their sights” going back, and behaving won’t change anything ; and if you aren’t, you are (equally) fine.

 

So, fine to go back for cooking ingredients : just be extra careful to scan everything correctly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just going off on a little tangent here but don't self scan.use a normal checkout and it will avoid all issues..

 

 

I hate self scan. I wont use it because supermarkets make enough money and by using self scan it stops them.employing cashiers.

If self scan said " 10% off the bottom line bill as we dont have to employ anyone" I still wouldn't use them

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure if use scan as you shop ever again if I'm honest!

Might pop in just to check as I'm always popping in and out for stuff.

 

Will get ingredients and go to a till.

 

If they've taken things further I'm sure they'll say something surely.

 

Mostly worried someone will come to the house!

 

Would rather they said something in store actually

then I would know where I stand.

 

It's the fear of the unknown.

Edited by Twinmummy26
Link to post
Share on other sites

no one will ever come to your home..

 

they are not bailiffs but powerless fleecers

ignore RLP

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

oh and I would be saying anything to anyone

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't eat or sleep. In constant state of anxiety! I'm already on amytriptolyn and still feel awful! Every car that goes past I worry.

Would be just good to know if the police are liable to come knocking!

 

Hello there.

 

Nobody has said that the police will come knocking, it isn't how it works.

 

I think the one piece of advice you might consider is talking to your GP about this in case there is a medical or mental reason why you shoplifted. We see a lot of people who have background reasons for what they do. Being a new mum isn't easy, please take what help you can and don't over analyse what's happening. I know you've had a tough time, we've all been through that, but you'll get through this.

 

Hugs, HB

Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure how anything works!

 

I thought they can report to police and they'll have to come to my house for a chat rather than the store.

 

There's not much information if this has happened before to anyone.

 

When I went back in to pay for the items no-one came up to me.

 

Even went to the checkouts where the lady was who took the duplicate receipt just to see if she'd say anything.

Link to post
Share on other sites

All done

End of

 

Forget about it!!

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The key point that stands out for me is that "they took a copy of the receipt", as I've never had that happen to me whenever I've had a 'random rescan' (from a number of retailers,), as this may suggest this was flagged for 'loss prevention', rather than the routine rescan only.

.......

 

Have you done this before?.

 

The reason I'm asking is that if you were already on the 'radar' for loss prevention they might have been watching you on CCTV

- if so, they can refer the evidence to the police, and the police might then come looking for you.

...........

 

Either way, don't do it again!. If you 'get lucky' this time, you may not be so lucky if you chance your arm again.

 

 

I’ve checked with a friend who worked for Tesco with responsibility including loss prevention.

 

The receipt might have been copied to pass to loss prevention for future attention OR for “stats” (“look at this example of how much we’ve saved by intervention”).

 

It is very unusual for Tesco to “build a case” against an individual and not call the police at the time once they have enough evidence. If the person wasn’t detained by loss prevention (or, at least, an attempt to detain them!) and the police weren’t called at the time : it is unlikely they’ll take it to the police.

 

So, either you go back to the store, and provided you don’t reoffend you'll hear nothing more OR you go back and they’ll tell you they are banning you.

Of course, if you go back and reoffend; they may well stop you and call the police.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you BazzaS!

Thank you for asking your friend. Think I might leave it a while to go into the store again! I may just do an online shop to use my vouchers.

I'm never ever going to it ever again trust me just go to normal checkout!

Edited by Twinmummy26
Link to post
Share on other sites

go to a proper till.

 

I never use self scan,

I think they are immoral and bad for business

but the big stores have calculated that the savings on staff versus the extra losses make them worthwhile.

 

I could also put a list of things like

3 lots of surgery in 2 months,

illnesses, deaths etc

 

I dont use any of this to mitigate shoplifting becasue I dont do it,

never have and never will.

 

From your opening post it was quite a deliberate act

so you wont get any sympathy from me

 

but as the store seems to have dealt with things how they wish to

then it is very unlikley that anything will ever come from it.

 

Hopefully this has had the effect of putting you and the correct path from now on.

 

If you are “in their sights” going back, and behaving won’t change anything ; and if you aren’t, you are (equally) fine.

 

So, fine to go back for cooking ingredients : just be extra careful to scan everything correctly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is also the fact that Tesco can ban anyone they feel like. Stores operate as private space but allow the public to enter. This permission can be removed at any time for anyone and for any (or no) reason.

 

Having read what you are going through, it's easy for me to understand that things happen with no reason.

 

You have no excuse for stealing BUT there are reasons why. It is down to you to find out what they are and a chat to your GP (in confidence) is a must. They have heard it all before and could give you better advice than we ever could and possibly a short course of happy pills. Stress can cause no end of hormone and serotonin level to drop which cause loads of problems.

 

In the meantime, go back to Tesco. I doubt that there will be any issue but be prepared 'just in case' (highly unlikely) Try to gets things into perspective if you can. What you did was wrong but you put it right. While the intent was there, remorse got to you and you realised what you did was wrong and you went back to put things right.

 

Police! Nah!. They rarely get involved with this unless you are a persistent offender which you're not.

Civil Recovery. Unlikely but you can never tell with business. If that does happen, we are well equipped to deal with them.

 

In other words, nothing major is going to happen. Try to de-stress, get some rest and try not to think of this SINGLE event. Over time, your feelings will change.

If you are asked to deal with any matter via private message, PLEASE report it.

Everything I say is opinion only. If you are unsure on any comment made, you should see a qualified solicitor

Please help CAG. Order this ebook. Now available on Amazon. Please click HERE

Link to post
Share on other sites

^^ Completely agree. Tesco do not tend to involve police after the incident unless there has been a documented series of events. The incident 'may' have been logged on their reporting system to cross reference in the event of any future similar incidents to see if a pattern is developing. You would only be challenged on re entering the store if you tried to do the same again.

 

Probably best not to use self scan in future but force yourself to go through a manned checkout. Then there can be no doubt over your honesty and no temptation for you to steal unless you are silly enough to hide items in your trolley and not pay

Any advice given is done so on the assumption that recipients will also take professional advice where appropriate.

 

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

DONATE HERE

 

If I have been helpful in any way - please feel free to click on the STAR to the left!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...